- 1 - CP No. 100057 of 2025 RESERVED ON : 15.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 19.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL PETITION NO.100057 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SOUMYA H.M. W/O. RAGHAVENDRA A D/O. HEMAPPA B. AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. #823 HOSPETE ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI, TEACHERS COLONY ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583131 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O ANANT RAO AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. GENERAL INSURANCE AGENT, R/O. ADARSHA COLONY, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHRU-584128. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO TRANSFER THE M.C.NO.119/2024 PENDING IN THE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, SINDHANUR, DISTRICT RAICHUR TO THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI DISTRICT VIJAYANAGAR FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.09.19 15:12:33 +0530 - 2 - CP No. 100057 of 2025 IN THIS CIVIL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer the M.C.No.119/2024 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli, for the following reasons : “1. That, the case filed by the respondent at Sindhanur is based on unsuitable and false allegations and the case is liable to be dismissed on merits. The case is filed at Sindhanur with an ulterior motive of causing harassment on the petitioner. 2. That, the petitioner is shouldered with responsibility of taking care of the old age mother and father, who is financially unstable, and the traveling to Sindhanur and attending the case on every date of hearing would cause greater hardship on the petitioner. 3. It is submitted that it is not possible for the petitioner to travel alone such a distance to attend the Court at Sindhanur, District Raichuru. There is also life threat to the petitioner during her stay at her matrimonial house along with the respondent. A litigant is to be afforded a congenial atmosphere of physical security and assurance of effective legal representation which are concomitants of - 3 - CP No. 100057 of 2025 the right to a fair trial. The litigant looks up to a fair judicial process which involves a level playing field as regards his opponent. Often the concept of Justice as regards the litigant would be not necessarily the certainty of a desired result, but a level playing field with an opportunity to put forth his case as law would afford. This procedural fairness constitutes a vital component of a substantive right of a fair trial. Further this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Apex Court were pleased to hold that convenience of wife has to look into in respect of matrimonial disputes as observed in the case of NCV AISHWARYA Vs. A SARVAN KARTHIK SHA (2022 Live Law (SC 627). Therefore, the petition may be allowed in the interest of Justice.” 2. Along with this petition, the petitioner/wife has produced the certified copy of order sheet pertaining to M.C.No.119/2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur and copy of petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. Respondent/husband appeared through his counsel and filed his statement of objections contending that the petitioner herein has completed her M.Sc. Physics from St. Philomena’s College, Mysuru and working as Guest Faculty in the Government College at Harappanahalli, even as on the date of filing of MC.NO.119/2024. - 4 - CP No. 100057 of 2025 4. It is also contended that petitioner herein has never allowed this respondent even to touch her and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was not consummated at any point of time and she has never shown interest to live with the respondent herein. This respondent has tried to console her on day-to-day basis. After waiting for a period of almost one year, respondent has informed the parents of the petitioner herein regarding her behavior and what had happened till that date, but instead of convincing their daughter, the parents of the petitioner has abused respondent in filthy language and they did not listen to the words of elder members of the Panchayat called by both the parties to solve the issue between the petitioner and the respondent. The father of petitioner has not even respected the words of the Panchayat members and scolded them also. Neither the petitioner nor her parents have agreed to continue the marital life with this respondent. On the other hand, the said action of the petitioner and her parents is causing harassment to the respondent. The father of the petitioner has even threatened this respondent and his family members. 5. It is also contended that the petitioner harassed the respondent and his family members from the date of her entry - 5 - CP No. 100057 of 2025 into the life of respondent as wife. This respondent has to look after and take special care of his grandmother, who is aged about 87 years and bed ridden and there is no one to look after her. The parents of respondent are also old aged, who needs care. Therefore, it is very difficult to travel to attend the Court at Harappanahalli on every date of hearing, since Harappanahalli is situated around 200 kms away from the Sindhanur. The petitioner herein has no inconvenience or hardship to attend the matter at Sindhanur. This respondent is having fear and threat from the family members and relatives of the petitioner and on the other hand, transfer of the case in MC No.119/2024 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sindhanur to the Jurisdictional Court at Harappanahalli would cause great hardship and injustice to the respondent. On all these grounds, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to allow this petition? (2) What order? 7. I have perused the materials on record. - 6 - CP No. 100057 of 2025 8. In the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha, Civil Appeal No(S).4894/2022 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.(S). 16465/2021), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 9. In the case on hand, the respondent/husband has contended that he has to look after and take special care of his grandmother, who is aged 87 years and bed ridden and there is no one to look after his parents who are also old aged. These objections cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that the respondent need not attend the Court on every hearing as he - 7 - CP No. 100057 of 2025 is already represented through his counsel Sri M.Muthyal Rao. Only at the time of conciliation and evidence, his appearance is required. Hence, accepting the reasons shown by the petitioner and keeping in mind of the decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya supra, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out grounds to allow this petition. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the ‘affirmative’. 10. For the above reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) M.C.No.119/2024 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur is withdrawn and same is transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harappanahalli as sought for. (iii) Registry is directed to send copy of this order to both courts for taking necessary action. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK CT-CMU